chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Richard Reti
Reti 
 
Number of games in database: 708
Years covered: 1907 to 1929

Overall record: +291 -181 =174 (58.5%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games in the database. 62 exhibition games, blitz/rapid, odds games, etc. are excluded from this statistic.

MOST PLAYED OPENINGS
With the White pieces:
 Ruy Lopez (45) 
    C86 C68 C77 C84 C78
 English (43) 
    A13 A15 A12 A14 A10
 French Defense (30) 
    C12 C13 C10 C01 C00
 Orthodox Defense (28) 
    D63 D50 D60 D68 D51
 Sicilian (24) 
    B40 B56 B46 B29 B32
 French (23) 
    C12 C13 C10 C00 C11
With the Black pieces:
 Ruy Lopez (46) 
    C66 C77 C67 C63 C68
 Queen's Pawn Game (32) 
    A46 A50 D00 D02 D05
 French Defense (28) 
    C11 C12 C01 C10 C14
 French (21) 
    C11 C12 C10 C00 C13
 Alekhine's Defense (16) 
    B02 B03 B05
 Caro-Kann (14) 
    B10 B15 B13 B12 B18
Repertoire Explorer

NOTABLE GAMES: [what is this?]
   Reti vs Tartakower, 1910 1-0
   Reti vs Bogoljubov, 1924 1-0
   Reti vs Capablanca, 1924 1-0
   Euwe vs Reti, 1920 0-1
   Reti vs Rubinstein, 1923 1-0
   Reti vs Euwe, 1920 1-0
   Bogoljubov vs Reti, 1923 0-1
   Alekhine vs Reti, 1922 1/2-1/2
   Reti vs P Romanovsky, 1925 1-0
   Reti vs Yates, 1924 1-0

NOTABLE TOURNAMENTS: [what is this?]
   Gothenburg (1920)
   Teplitz-Schönau (1922)
   Maehrisch-Ostrau (1923)
   Vienna (1923)
   Dortmund (1928)
   Scheveningen (1923)
   Abbazia (1912)
   Karlsbad (1923)
   Bad Pistyan (1922)
   New York (1924)
   Baden-bei-Wien (1914)
   Marienbad (1925)
   Moscow (1925)
   Semmering (1926)
   Baden-Baden (1925)

GAME COLLECTIONS: [what is this?]
   Veliki majstori saha 16 RETI (Petrovic) by Chessdreamer
   Richard Réti's Best Games by Golombek by SirIvanhoe
   Richard Réti's Best Games by Golombek by suenteus po 147
   Richard Réti's Best Games by Golombek by wormrose
   Rgrrgrr at Fredthebear by fredthebear
   Move by Move - Reti (Engqvist) by Qindarka
   Reti's Best Games of Chess by matey
   Red Robin Riding Hood went around by fredthebear
   Richard Reti @ the 1924 New York International by ruylopez900
   New York 1924 - Alekhine by vantheanh
   New York 1924 by JoseTigranTalFischer
   New York 1924 - Alekhine by StoppedClock
   New York 1924 by Benzol

GAMES ANNOTATED BY RETI: [what is this?]
   Breyer vs J Esser, 1917
   Alekhine vs H Fahrni, 1914
   Breyer vs K Havasi, 1918


Search Sacrifice Explorer for Richard Reti
Search Google for Richard Reti


RICHARD RETI
(born May-28-1889, died Jun-06-1929, 40 years old)
PRONUNCIATION:
[what is this?]

Richard Réti was born in 1889 in Bösing (now Pezinok, Slovakia) which at the time was in the Hungarian part of Austria-Hungary.

Early career

At the age of 12, he had already submitted a chess problem to the chess column in Über Land und Meer run by Hermann von Gottschall. Von Gottschall advised him to continue working on his chess. In 1903, the then 13-year old Réti was introduced to Carl Schlechter who remarked "for his age, this is certainly exceptional".(RR) He went on to fare well at the 2nd Hungarian National tournament in Székesfehérvár, 1907.(Edo) Réti's interest in chess was dampened following some disappointing tournament results, although he won smaller events in Vienna 1909 and the 2nd Trebitsch Memorial in 1910.(Edo) His main interests then became mathematics and, to some extent, physics. He was about to finish his doctorate when World War I broke out. Réti was assigned to clerical work due to his "somewhat weak constitution".(RR)

A turn of life

In 1918, he won the strong Kaschau (Košice) tournament. But he still viewed chess mostly as a hobby. He had planned to finish his doctorate in mathematics at the University of Vienna. He carried his doctoral thesis around in a small booklet, which he lost and never recovered. This drove him near suicide as he later confided to his older brother Rudolph.(RR) At that time, Richard received an invitation to go to the Netherlands as a Chess Master in Residence. He accepted the invitation, and decided to pursue a chess career instead of becoming a scholar. Regarding this decision, Rudolph said, "It haunted him throughout his life, and he never found a definite answer to it."(RR)

Tournament successes

Réti won 1st prize in the strong Gothenburg (1920) tournament. He confirmed his status as one of the top players in the world during the early 20th century by winning Teplitz-Schönau 1922.(TS) He came in 2nd at Maehrisch-Ostrau (1923) and Vienna (1923). Réti also won the Dr. Körner tournament (Hakoah, Vienna) in 1928.(WSZ28).

Theory and Practice

He worked to found hypermodernism, along with Aron Nimzowitsch and Savielly Tartakower. The Réti Opening (1.♘f3 d5 2.c4) has become a staple of grandmaster play. With this opening system, Réti famously defeated then reigning world champion Capablanca in Reti vs Capablanca, 1924 in New York (1924), the Cuban's first loss in eight years and first as world champion. Réti authored two books, Modern Ideas In Chess (Die neuen Ideen im Schachspiel, 1922) in 1923 and Masters Of The Chess Board (Die Meister des Schachbretts, 1930), published posthumously in 1933.

Study composition

Réti also composed numerous endgame studies, the most famous of which was a 1921 study that illustrated a beautiful method of drawing what may seem to be a hopeless king and pawn ending. White to play and draw:


click for larger view

Réti died from scarlet fever a week after turning forty.

Sources

(RR) Rudolph Réti in Edward Winter's "The Réti Brothers", http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...
(Edo) Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/players/p217...
(TS) Game Collection: Teplitz-Schönau 1922
(WSZ28) "Wiener Schachzeitung", March 1928, pages 81-82. Provided in "ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek"
Wikipedia article: Richard Réti

Last updated: 2018-01-26 23:03:26

 page 1 of 29; games 1-25 of 716  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. L Forgacs vs Reti 1-0431907SzekesfehervarC84 Ruy Lopez, Closed
2. Reti vs Z Barasz 1-0611907SzekesfehervarD11 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
3. Alapin vs Reti 1-0631908ViennaC86 Ruy Lopez, Worrall Attack
4. Reti vs E Cohn  0-1491908ViennaC49 Four Knights
5. Marshall vs Reti 1-0311908ViennaC49 Four Knights
6. Reti vs Maroczy 0-1541908ViennaB22 Sicilian, Alapin
7. J N Berger vs Reti 1-0261908ViennaD05 Queen's Pawn Game
8. Reti vs Teichmann 0-1341908ViennaC49 Four Knights
9. Schlechter vs Reti 1-0471908ViennaC65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense
10. Reti vs Duras ½-½311908ViennaB13 Caro-Kann, Exchange
11. J Mieses vs Reti 1-0251908ViennaC23 Bishop's Opening
12. Reti vs H Suechting  ½-½171908ViennaB01 Scandinavian
13. Tartakower vs Reti 1-0341908ViennaA30 English, Symmetrical
14. Reti vs Leonhardt ½-½531908ViennaC26 Vienna
15. Swiderski vs Reti 1-0321908ViennaA84 Dutch
16. Reti vs Spielmann 0-1361908ViennaC86 Ruy Lopez, Worrall Attack
17. Salwe vs Reti 1-0311908ViennaD00 Queen's Pawn Game
18. Von Bardeleben vs Reti 1-0301908ViennaC77 Ruy Lopez
19. Reti vs J Perlis  0-1361908ViennaD32 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch
20. Rubinstein vs Reti 1-0161908ViennaD00 Queen's Pawn Game
21. Reti vs P Johner  0-1341908ViennaD30 Queen's Gambit Declined
22. Reti vs Lasker 0-1151908Clock simul, 3bC56 Two Knights
23. L Loewy Jr vs Reti ½-½501909Winter Tt 1908/09C45 Scotch Game
24. J Krejcik vs Reti 0-1311909ViennaC26 Vienna
25. Reti vs Meitner 1-0251909Trebitsch tournamentC67 Ruy Lopez
 page 1 of 29; games 1-25 of 716  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Reti wins | Reti loses  
 

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 7 OF 15 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jul-06-08  Ziggurat: <keypusher> Really? Sure, it's a bit ideological, but so are "My System" and "New Ideas in Chess". Don't you like those either? Personally, I am very fond on "New Ideas in Chess". "Masters of the Chessboard" also contains a lot of interesting stuff, I think.
Jul-06-08  brankat: It looks I will now actually have to read the book :-)

Of course it is not easy now for me to respond here, without going through R.Reti's volume first, so just a few general remarks.

<keypusher> <His basic theme is that it is ideas (..as opposed to, say, skill), that brings success in chess, so every great confrontation in chess history is presented as a struggle between chess ideologies..>

Apparently Reti's intention was to try to understand, and present, the historical development (7-8 prior decades) of chess strategy as an evolution of ideas based on inherent (at the time "discovered") principles of the game. All that as represented by games of the pertinent masters of the era.

The same approach has been used countless times in studying development/evolution of about every other human pursuit.

It is understood that in matches and tournaments players of comparable skills and knowledge will be paired/matched. Often a current from will decide, or preparation etc.

But at every historical crossroads of the game there was more that ultimately sealed the outcomes: The evolution of idea(s). Chesswise and otherwise.

Dr.Lasker wrote convincingly (and eloquently) about the dialectics of the evolution of Chess using matches Anderssen-Morphy and Steinitz-Zukertort as examples.

Steinitz actually conceived most of his principles while marveling at Anderssen's loss to Morphy! Zukertort was never able to understand and explain his failures against Steinitz.

How much more skilled was Steinitz? Or Morphy? Or later Dr.Lasker when facing Steinitz or Tarrasch?

It was not the level of skill/talent that prevailed. The new, and often revolutionary ideas did.

Every concept will eventually outlive its usefulness. It is no different in case of Chess.

Anderssen's "romanticism" could not survive Morphy's iron logic.

Zukertort old Italian plan could not damage Steinitz's solid positional build-up.

Steinitz's caprices and Tarrasch's dogmatism could not resist Lasker's pragmatism.

The same evolutionary dialectics was evident later, too. In 1921, 1927, 1948, 1960, 1972 etc. At every milestone in the development of the game.

It is possible that Reti purposefully "over-emphasized" the concept, just to make the point of explaining the overall logic of the growth of Chess.

<Lasker's success is described as the result of superior psychology rather than superior play -- Reti going so far as to say that Lasker made bad moves on purpose,..>

There were a number of Dr.Lasker's contemporaries who stated more or less the same.

My guess is that they were fascinated with Lasker's ability to win a lot of games against equally skilled and knowledgeable opponents by often choosing "dubious"/"of-beat" ideas. Which reflects Lasker's view/idea of the game. That of a "gigantic struggle of two wills".

Again, it is understood that he (like others) possessed all the necessary skills and available knowledge. So, an additional element was needed.

Of course, Dr.Lasker's "bad moves" were not really bad :-) Capablanca wrote about it.

More after I read the book :-)

Jul-07-08
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <brankat>

<How much more skilled was Steinitz? Or Morphy? Or later Dr.Lasker when facing Steinitz or Tarrasch?

It was not the level of skill/talent that prevailed. The new, and often revolutionary ideas did.>

I haven't studied Steinitz-Zukertort closely, but I think Z's wonderful games at the London 1883 tournament were at least as modern as Steinitz's. Judge for yourself. Lasker's matches with Steinitz and Tarrasch I have studied closely, particularly the latter. It was skill, not ideas, that made the difference. Specifically, Lasker was a stronger and more accurate calculator than either Steinitz or Tarrasch, and unlike either of them he almost never blundered. I also think he was psychologically much tougher than Tarrasch. I think superior calculating ability was also Morphy's main advantage over Anderssen, though he had others, especially his extraordinary knowledge of "book."

I suspect <nimh>'s rybka project reveals more about why great masters were successful than anything they ever wrote, or that anyone else wrote about them.

<There were a number of Dr.Lasker's contemporaries who stated more or less the same.>

I don't think they went nearly as far as Reti. If they did, then they are wrong too. Hoffer, writing about the Tarrasch match, noted Lasker's "scrupulously correct play." That is much closer to the mark.

<Ziggurat: <keypusher> Really? Sure, it's a bit ideological, but so are "My System" and "New Ideas in Chess". Don't you like those either? Personally, I am very fond on "New Ideas in Chess". "Masters of the Chessboard" also contains a lot of interesting stuff, I think.>

I've never read <New Ideas in Chess.> I do like My System, but despite its ideology, not because of it. Agree that there is lots of interesting stuff in <Masters of the Chessboard>. The presence of interesting matter in a book has never kept me from disliking it, however. :-)

Jul-07-08  brankat: <keypusher> <I also think he (Lasker) was psychologically much tougher than Tarrasch...>

Now You are talking just like Reti himself :-)

<...rybka project reveals more about why great masters were successful than anything they ever wrote, or that anyone else wrote about them.>

This I don't believe will ever be the case!

And just for a moment back to the "ideas/plans/principles vs(?) skills (technical tools)".

Of course, to be strong and successful one must have both. Then they go hand in hand.

I think that many writers/theorists, Reti amongst them, were trying to understand which aspect seemed to be a foundation, and anchor. Where does one start?

It is very similar to a 3 thousand years of debate in Philosophy: which comes first (and is a foundation), an idea or matter. I don't believe the "issue" will ever be resolved. Neither is it necessary.

Reti opted for ideas themselves, and assigned the know-how to apply them (=skills) the supporting role.

Apparently this stems from the conviction that it is much easier to learn and improve the necessary technical skills, than to acquire a vast body of knowledge (ideas), and more importantly Understand them. Preferably, contribute one's own, too.

As far as I know, all, or just about all, of the others felt and stated the same. From Steinitz to Kasparov.

Jul-07-08  brankat: For the sake of entertainment, a few quotes, loosely related to the above (Steinitz, Tarrasch, Zukertort, Lasker) coming up :-)

"No great player blundered oftener than I had done. I was champion of the world for twenty-eight years because I was twenty years ahead of my time.

I played on certain principles, which neither Zukertort nor anyone else of his time understood. The players of today, such as Lasker, Tarrasch, Pillsbury, Schlechter and others have adopted my principles, and, as is only natural, they have improved upon what I began, and that is the whole secret of the matter."

– Wilhelm Steinitz

Jul-07-08  brankat: "If Zukertort has a plan in mind, he is a match for Steinitz, possibly even his peer. Every move of Zukertort's pointed towards a vigorous cooperation of the pieces united to attack the King. This is the old Italian plan; Zukertort found it ready made, and in the tactics of execution he was a great master. Steinitz, however, discovered sound and successful plans over the board.

Zukertort relied on combinations, and in that field he was a discoverer, a creative genius. For all that, he was unable to make use of his faculty, the positions yielding no response to his passionate search for combinations. Zukertort, the great discoverer, searched in vain, while Steinitz was able to foresee them.

Zukertort could not understand how Steinitz was able to prevent combinations. He tried for four years to solve this riddle, but he never approached its solution by even one step."

– Emanuel Lasker

Jul-07-08  brankat: "Dr. Tarrasch is a thinker, fond of deep and complex speculation. He will accept the efficacy and usefulness of a move if at the same time he considers it beautiful and theoretically right.

But I accept that sort of beauty only if and when it happens to be useful.

He admires an idea for its depth, I admire it for its efficacy. My opponent believes in beauty, I believe in strength. I think that by being strong, a move is beautiful too."

– Emanuel Lasker

Jul-07-08  brankat: A few relating to Dr.Lasker's fabled "extra-quality" :-)

"Steinitz always looked for the objectively right move. Tarrasch always claimed to have found the objectively right move.

Lasker did nothing of the kind. He never bothered about what might or might not be the objectively right move; all he cared for was to find whatever move was likely to be most embarrassing for the specific person sitting on the other side of the board."

– Jacques Hannak

"Although he had a great grasp and appreciation of Steinitz' theories, Lasker always played the man as well as the board."

– Dave Regis

"Lasker won so many games from bad positions that he was accused by at least one opponent of witchcraft, by another of hypnotism and by many more as being grossly over-endowed with good luck.

In fact, he often deliberately courted difficult positions because he understood the mental stress that can be built up in the mind of an attacker when he meets with a resolute defense. By building up an opponent's hopes and then placing a trail of difficulties in his path, Lasker would induce feelings of doubt, confusion and finally panic."

Bill Hartston

"I keep on fighting as long as my opponent can make a mistake."

– Emanuel Lasker

"Lasker understood better than anyone that the true nature of the struggle in chess was not an objective search for the truth, but a psychological battle against both oneself and the opponent, in conditions of extreme uncertainty."

– Max Euwe

"In life, as in chess, Lasker was a fighter."

– Fred Reinfeld

"It is remarkable, and deserves special mention that the great masters, such as Pillsbury, Maroczy and Janowsky play against Lasker as though hypnotized."

– Georg Marco

"Often his opponents (and annotators too) would still be wondering long afterwards where the game had actually been lost. Advantages seemed to disappear mysteriously when facing Lasker!"

– Richard Forster

"It is no easy matter to reply correctly to Lasker's bad moves."

– William Pollock

Jul-07-08  brankat: Dr.lasker' critique of R.Reti:

"On a motif such as was indicated by Reti, one cannot build the plan of a whole well contested game; it is too meager, too thin, too puny for such an end.

Reti's explanations, wherever they are concerned with an analysis which covers a few moves, are correct and praiseworthy. But when he abandons the foundations of analysis in order to draw too bold, too general a conclusion, his arguments prove to be mistaken."

– Emanuel Lasker

Jul-07-08
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <"If Zukertort has a plan in mind, he is a match for Steinitz, possibly even his peer. Every move of Zukertort's pointed towards a vigorous cooperation of the pieces united to attack the King. This is the old Italian plan; Zukertort found it ready made, and in the tactics of execution he was a great master. Steinitz, however, discovered sound and successful plans over the board.">

Well, see for yourself. Is Zukertort employing the "old Italian plan" in these games?

Zukertort vs J Noa, 1883

Zukertort vs S Rosenthal, 1883

Zukertort vs Englisch, 1883

Bird vs Zukertort, 1883

If anything, he has a bias towards attacking on the queenside, then working his way back to the enemy king once he has obtained an clear superiority. Even in his famous brilliancy against Blackburne, he begins his kingside attack only after he's gained the advantage in the center and Blackburne has committed almost his entire army to the queenside.

Zukertort vs Blackburne, 1883

If I were trying to show someone what a "solid positional buildup" looks like, I could hardly do better than show him Zukertort's games at London. And what sort of self-respecting Italianate romatic begins his games with 1. Nf3 anyway?

<"It is no easy matter to reply correctly to Lasker's bad moves."

– William Pollock >

I thought Reti said that.

<Reti's explanations, wherever they are concerned with an analysis which covers a few moves, are correct and praiseworthy. But when he abandons the foundations of analysis in order to draw too bold, too general a conclusion, his arguments prove to be mistaken."

– Emanuel Lasker >

Exactly! Viz., <Masters of the Chessboard>

<<keypusher> <I also think he (Lasker) was psychologically much tougher than Tarrasch...>

Now You are talking just like Reti himself :-) >

Well, it would be crazy to say psychology plays no role in chess. But what I meant by that particular remark was very simple: Tarrasch sometimes seemed to give up in bad positions, while Lasker never did. Striking examples of Tarrasch "giving up" are, I think, games 2 and 11 of the 1908 match. This is what I wrote about game 2:

<Also, although Tarrasch did make some second-rate moves in time pressure, as we have seen he was by no means lost after the control was reached. Perhaps because he was convinced his position was hopeless, he did not make use of the defensive chances he still had between moves 30-40.

The Lasker quote that <chancho> posted ascribes Tarrasch's defeat to dogmatism, but I think Tarrasch's strong sense of narrative (and, more prosaically, his bad nerves) is to blame. In his mind, White seized a winning advantage early, but, oppressed by the memory of his defeat in the first game, chose a weak line and then, harassed by the clock and his own doubts, threw the game away. That was the "story of the game." In fact, his position was not as good at move 15, or as bad at move 30, as he thought, and things stayed murky for a very long time. A chess game is the product of two minds and wills, not one, and so it rarely tells a clear story. (That's what problems are for.) Lasker always understood this much better than Tarrasch.>

But I think Lasker's better nerves were a minor advantage compared to his superior calculating ability.

Jul-09-08  brankat: <keypusher> Like every good attorney You found a weak point and attacked it. Left most of the rest alone :-)

So let me try to generalize and take it to the extreme.

Perhaps the choice of Zukertort was not a good one. But there are more than just many other ones. In fact all of them deserve exactly the same consideration. In principle.

In each and every game ever played since the dawn of Chess one thing has not changed. Chess has been a game/contest of two sets of ideas, plans, thoughts, wills, desires. Without these there is no game.

These opposing ideas, thoughts, plans, need to be somehow expressed in a practical OTB situation. Hence the need for an appropriate skill of implementation: Technique. Just that, a technical necessity, a tool.

Assuming (again) that the knowledge and skill level is comparable, then the contest will be, more often than not, a fair one.

While it is true that a given game, a match, a tournament, will, at times, be decided mainly due to a superior skill application (for various reasons: blunders, pressure, nerves, zeitnot...), even then, it is still the ideas and thoughts that guide players and games. It is still these opposing ideas and plans that are fighting it out.

And it is still superior ideas and better thought-out plans that are the foundation of a favourable outcome of a contest.

It is still they that are the essence of the game. Its soul. Its very life.

Without it the game would be an empty shell, worth nothing.

To settle the "dispute" I have a proposal. Since You're not particularly fond of Reti's writings, and I love it already, without even ever reading the book, why don't You simply just get rid of it by mailing it to me :-) That way we'll both be happy. Besides, didn't You just buy a bunch of books in Vegas? Must be running out of book-self space by now :-)

Always good talking to You!

Jul-10-08  brankat: I guess I'll just have to visit my friendly neighborhood library :-)
Jul-13-08  brankat: For those interested here is a memoir of R.Reti by his brother Rudolph. Warm, insightful and first hand.

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

Jul-13-08  malthrope: <brankat: For those interested here is a memoir of R.Reti by his brother Rudolph. Warm, insightful and first hand.

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... >

Thank You <brankat> ! :)

A pure pleasure to read! ;) Now I wished, even more than ever, that I had asked my dear old chess friend the late IM Imre Koenig more about his early days in Vienna... With the likes of Dr. Tartakower, Nimzowitsch and Réti! They spent many untold hours late at night in the grand Café's in Vienna. Much thanks to his brother Rudolph for writing it! :^) All the Best, - Mal

Jul-14-08  brankat: <malthrope> I thought You were going to like the story :-)
Jul-14-08  malthrope: <brankat: <malthrope> I thought You were going to like the story :-)>

I sure did! ;) Someday I'll have to write a fitting tribute to my dear old friend the late International Master Imre Koenig ! :) He was a dear friend and always with a twinkle in his eyes! I learned much from him mostly complicated Chess Problems (plus 3 moves or more) and Endgame studies! Also, of course, the <History of Chess> from his time (early 1920's). Thanks again <brankat> :^) My Best, - Mal

Jul-29-08
Premium Chessgames Member
  whiteshark: Quote of the Day

<It is a profound mistake to imagine that the art of combination depends only on natural talent, and that it cannot be learned.>

-- Reti

I don't think that combining is an art.

Jul-29-08  Vollmer: I disagree , 'Combinations' are a form of tactical art . This concept is not limited to chess . Using exceptional strategy in any military endeavor to most efficiently defeat the opponent (and Chess is a war of two) is the highest form of victory . See "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu . I have employed this concept in FPS online game tournaments to great effect . My motto is "distract and destroy" , so I open with the wonderful 1.Nf3 as White .
Jul-29-08
Premium Chessgames Member
  whiteshark: <Vollmer> Thanks for your justified objection. Maybe I've used <art> in a very restricted meaning. But you can always impress me with either Sun Tzu, Lasker or Purdy. I'll check Lasker's 'Manual' later.
Aug-05-08
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <brankat> I must apologize to you, it was indeed Pollock who said "It is no easy matter to reply correctly to Lasker's bad moves." For anyone else who is interested, here is a very nice little article by Winter on Pollock, including the quote.

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

Aug-05-08
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <Brankat> PS, I must also apologize for not reading and responding to your invitation to mail you Masters of the Chessboard. I would certainly have done it, but my copy is in storage. Where I must send a many other books soon, now that I have discovered all the free ones at Google.
Aug-28-08
Premium Chessgames Member
  GrahamClayton: It is a little known fact that after the 1924 New York tournament, Reti went to South America and played in the 1924 Argentine championship. He played "hors concours", and finished 1st, 4.5 points ahead of Roberto Grau.
Sep-02-08
Premium Chessgames Member
  GrahamClayton: Source: CN 1999 Edward Winter, "A Chess Omnibus", Russell Enterprises, 2003
Jan-02-09  WhiteRook48: Remember Reti's famous diagonal march? Everyone probably knows that but it seems to still look like a magician's work. If it was Black to move he'd win. 1. Kg7! h5 2. Kf6! h4 3. Ke5! h3 4. Kd6! h2 5. c7! Kb7 6. Kd7 h1=Q 7. c8=Q+ 1/2-1/2.
Jan-02-09  chessamateur: <WhiteRook48>

Richard Réti, 1921


click for larger view

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 15)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 7 OF 15 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.


NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific player only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC